Just War Theory- pt 1/5

So I haven't posted anything for absolutely donkey's years, the lack of posting is to do with School work. So I'm posting something I qrote about a year ago, This is part one of five. I'm going to be talking about the just war theory- one my most enjoyed subjects. Also, just as a little note on the side, all me work is from my own head, if however I do use someone else's work I will of written a bibliography or the such like. If you want to use any of my work in an essay or any similar thing, it is severely appreciated that you ask me first. :)

Just War Theory

The Just War Theory was developed at a time when armies frequently fought major battles in campaigns of conquests and when Christianity and Catholicism formulated a common cultural framework for the European world. In their society the Just War Theory had a major place in warfare. It kept countries from waging war for territorial reasons and revenge, and it made peace available to all those under Catholicism. However, since that time the world has seen a major shift in 'society' as a whole. We must ask the question - can a ‘just war’ play any part in today’s modern warfare and can it relate to the contemporary structure of international relations? In the following paragraphs I aspire to construct unambiguous reasons for the fact that the Just War Theory is outdated and cannot play any part in today’s society; I will also discuss what we can use instead of Just War Theory.

Just war theory or Bellum iustum has its roots in the thinking of various Roman and Greek philosophers, including Plato, but Catholicism played the larger part in its development. There are several specific criteria that must be met to label a war 'just' ¹(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War). These criteria are: just cause, comparative justice, legitimate authority, right intention, probability of success, last resort and proportionality. Bellum iustum has two closely related components, Jus ad bellum (Just cause) and Jus in Bello (the laws of war). Jus ad bellum says is that the stimulus for going to war must be just, and thus cannot be based on recapturing stolen items or punishing persons who have done wrong. Also, the lives of innocents must be in critical danger; therefore, the attack must be solely based on saving their lives ¹(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War). For war to be just, the wrong suffered by one side must significantly overshadow that suffered by the other. This is called comparative justice and is the perception that one side is more in the right than the other. Some people believe that this only works if one of the sides has done nothing wrong. This, of course, is difficult to assess in many cases, as usually both sides have participated in hostility... more to come....